Maus is pretty well done.
Your Friendly Ban Hammer-er
I think the negative perception is the old bias that was build up from the past. Not to mention no one in the comics industry is trying to change the perception of the average Joe. The positive I've seen lately is that because of manga; manga, comics, and graphic novels are becoming a norm in libraries and easily more available at everyday stores and not just niche specialty stores. In the end, it's really up to fans to spread the love and improve perception of manga an comics in general.
I talked recently to a teacher about this sorta thing, and he said part of it is that they used to just call it "comics" or "cartoons", and if you said "anime" you meant porn, so people automatically assumed you were trying to discuss porn with a story with them. So now, they biased.
Ruler of the Seventh Empire
Or just ignorant/misinformed.
101 Dalmations Member
I find it easy to love something if the content is something I loved in the first place but I find that very superficial and now look at art more for its quality, even if I don't like it as much. I don't see either of these as much of a problem though unless you're a serious critic with preferences.
One thing I remember, is that the impressionists had the same problem. I think it was Edouard Manet who kept trying to submit his new style to some major show, and it kept getting rejected because he put an emphasis on the the "bones" (is that what's it's called? Outlines, basically) and it wasn't realistic looking. He could make realistic art just like everyone else, but he wanted to break from the old traditions. Years later, their art was finally accepted as "fine art," like now a days I think we consider it so. Maybe, as others have stated, it's just a matter of time before manga/digital/etc art is finally accepted.
Who knows, maybe this will all get lumped into a movement and studied one day?
I try to base my opinion of an art piece on a combination of both quality and content. I mean, the content is what draws me to it initially, and it may not be realistic or "accurate," but it gets a response from me. I guess an example of this would be some of Picasso's cubism works. They're really jarring and kinda suck you in due to the content (Guernica..spelled wrong, I'm too lazy to look it up.) But I personally prefer stuff quality to content most of the time :/ I dunno, depends on my mood.
One thing, though, if you look up Seurat, he was able to do fantastic work technically. I mean, dude had all those dots, and there was a science to where he placed what colors. But the art critics griped because his works were "static" and boring. So even back then, no matter how skilled you were, people would bitch about what you did. He ended up trying more dynamic scenes, which were pretty cool. I think art should be a balanced combination of both. Splatters of paint look neat on canvas, but that's not necessarily going to hold meaning to a viewer. I understand the drips were painstakingly added, but still...I don't get as emotional staring at a Pollock as I do a piece by Bacon.
(This kinda brings up the argument, who is the art for? The viewer or the artist?)
Super Senior Member
Bacon makes me pretty emotional too. yumm~ but srsly, I don't think there will ever be an effective way to measure the quality of art if it's based, in any degree, on content. Art has to be evaluable beyond individuals' opinions, otherwise it renders the practice of art completely pointless. You have to be able to be "good" at it and "bad" at it on some objective level, or it loses its status as a trained skill and just becomes whatever people want it to be.
The other day I watched spongebob on tv, I can't find it on youtube...
well every episode seems to have been deleted even if you searched in google.
but it's this episode.
It's really funny how it's much closer to reality.
Originally Posted by Blue_Dragon